Experts and residents square off over proposals for permanent standard time or year‑round daylight time

The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight heard sharply different views on two time‑policy bills: H.3405, which would support permanent Eastern Standard Time (often described in testimony as “permanent standard time”), and S.2157, which would establish year‑round daylight saving time (referred to in testimony as Atlantic or permanent daylight time).

Dr. Karen Johnson, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist representing the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, urged adoption of permanent standard time and opposed permanent daylight saving time. “Permanent daylight saving time would delay sunrises in Massachusetts after 8 a.m. for about two months in winter,” she cautioned, arguing that later morning light harms circadian alignment and long‑term health. She cited studies linking the spring clock change and circadian disruption to short‑term increases in heart attacks and car crashes and warned that permanent daylight saving time could increase chronic disease risk over time.

Opponents of permanent standard time argued for the economic and lifestyle benefits of additional evening daylight. Tom Emsweiler, who testified in support of S.2157, said year‑round daylight time could reduce the spring “jet‑lag” effect and increase evening commerce; he cited a national estimate that additional evening hours could generate new activity in outdoor businesses and recreation.

Other witnesses framed the debate around safety for children waiting for morning school buses and pedestrian crash data. Elizabeth Johnson of Walk Bike Springfield noted that a large share of pedestrian crashes occur in darkness and urged caution about moving to year‑round daylight saving time because that schedule would push some winter sunrises later, increasing dark‑morning exposure for schoolchildren. JP, president of Safe Standard Time and an organizer in Arizona, argued Massachusetts is geographically better aligned with Eastern Standard Time and called permanent standard time the healthier option.

Several speakers noted the federal role: state changes to time zones require U.S. Department of Transportation approval and legislative or regulatory steps at the federal level for a broad, unilateral shift. Committee members asked for more data on localized impacts for school start times, commerce, and public safety.

No committee vote was taken; the hearing record will include dozens of studies and written testimony provided by medical societies, pedestrian-safety groups and business interests.

Why it matters: The choice would change sunrise and sunset times seasonally with direct effects on sleep, child safety, commerce and transportation planning. Lawmakers must weigh health evidence against economic and lifestyle preferences and seek a path consistent with federal approval requirements.